WE NOW HAVE A NEW NON GOOGLE WEB PAGE
GO HERE;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
holliegreigjustice.wordpress.com
and our back up
http://www.holliegreigjustice.uk/hgj

Sunday, 2 April 2017

THE FACTS AND WHY WE BELIEVE HOLLIE GREIG’S ALLEGATIONS

THE FACTS AND WHY WE BELIEVE HOLLIE GREIG’S ALLEGATIONS

1 The fact that Hollie has been entirely consistent at all times, even
during gruelling three-and-a-half-hour long police interviews.

2 The fact that Detective Inspector Alley found Hollie to be “A reliable
witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”.

3 The fact that Down’s Syndrome people cannot make up stories or lie.

4 The fact that Down’s Syndrome people have photographic memories.

5 The fact that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, basing
their decision on the usual civil standard of proof - the balance of
probability - found that Hollie was telling the truth and had suffered
repeated rape and sexual abuse as a child.

4 The fact that a Memo dated 5th July 1990 from Dr Paul Carter,
Beechwood School doctor, to Dr S J Wilson, of the Grampian Health Board
Community Services, states that Hollie, aged 10, had contracted sexually
transmitted perianal warts and was an ‘at risk’ child.

5 The fact that a letter dated 3rd February 1992 from Dr Paul Carter,
then Senior Medical Officer at Grampian Health Board Priority Services
Unit/Acute Services Division, to Hollie’s GP, Dr James Maitland, states
that Hollie is exhibiting signs of having had sexual experience.

6 The fact that Dr Frances Kelly, a police doctor who examined Hollie
at Bucksburn Police Station on 20 May 2000, confirmed that there was
evidence of sexual penetration.

7 The fact that an assessment of Hollie, dated 5th October 2001, by Dr
Jack Boyle BA, BSc (Econ), MEd, PhD, AFB PsyS, C Psychol concluded that
a) she was telling the truth and that b) she had been abused, and, in Dr
Boyle’s professional opinion, it was both plausible and probable that
there had been multiple abusers.

8 The fact that the ‘Report on Hollie Mackie (Greig)’, dated 22nd
February 2003, by Dr Eva Harding C Psychol, AFB PsyS concluded that a)
Hollie was telling the truth and that b) she had been abused and, in Dr
Harding’s professional opinion, it was both plausible and probably that
there had been multiple abusers.

9 The fact that a Grampian Police report dated 8th May 2007 notes that
Dennis and Greg Mackie are believed to have ‘a predilection for very
young girls’, and that Greg already had a conviction for masturbating in
public, coupled with the fact that Hollie (“a reliable witness to the
best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim”) was hardly likely
to have made a mistake when she identified her own father and brother as
her earliest tormentors.

10 The fact that no allowance was made for Hollie’s speech impediment
when questioning her, despite the advice of the Down’s Syndrome
Association, and that her difficulties in this respect were then used to
discredit her testimony.

11 The suspicious death of Hollie's uncle, who apparently committed
suicide by beating himself up and breaking his own sternum before
climbing into a burning car - all this shortly after he had, according
to his niece (deemed to be a reliable witness by both police and
medical professionals), seen her being abused by her father.

12 The fact that, after Hollie made her allegations, she and her mother
were subjected to such a level of persecution by the authorities -
including a violent attack on Anne, in an attempt to have her
sectioned, and a police raid on their home - that they were forced to
flee the country. Why such ferocity, if Hollie’s allegations were
groundless ?

13 The fact that this persecution continued after they settled in
Shropshire, so that they were forced to escape from their new home,
where a violent raid by the police had left them with no means of
securing the doors, and go into virtual hiding. Why this pursuit across
borders, if Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?

14 The fact that the ultimate sanction of threatening to take Hollie
into care was used to silence Anne. Why such extreme action, if
Hollie’s allegations were groundless ?

15 The fact that Hollie’s champion, Robert Green, has been
relentlessly and unreasonably persecuted by the Scottish police and
judicial system, and has been sentenced to two separate terms of
imprisonment, nine months of house arrest, and 250 hours of community
service on trifling charges. Why such an extreme reaction, if Hollie’s
allegations were groundless ?

16 The fact that Robert Green was only at last granted his freedom by
virtue of a gagging order which forbids him to speak of any case of
child abuse in Scotland, past or present, on pain of re-imprisonment.
Why are the Scottish authorities so afraid of what he might say ?

17 The fact that computers and notebooks containing valuable evidence
- including a verbatim record of Hollie’s three-and-a-half-hour
interview with DC Lisa Evans of Grampian Police which took place on 8th
September 2009 - were confiscated by Grampian without inventory
during raids on Robert Green’s home in Warrington, and have never been
returned. Again, why are the Scottish authorities so keen to prevent
certain facts being made public ?

18 The fact that none of the 22 people named by Hollie as abusers in
her interview with DC Lisa Evans on 8th September 2009 was interrogated
by Grampian Police. Why not ?

19 The fact that none of the named abusers’ computers were seized by Grampian Police. Why not?

20 The fact that Grampian Police failed to search the homes of any of the named abusers. Why not?

21 The fact that none of the 7 children named by Hollie as fellow
victims was interrogated by Grampian Police. Why not, when the
prosecuting authorities know perfectly well that rape cases in Scotland
require corroboration by a second person ?

22 The fact that not a single one of Hollie’s 22 named abusers has dared to defend his or her reputation in a court of law.

23 The fact that there is both documentary and verbal evidence
suggesting that former Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini, was responsible
for blocking a full investigation into Hollie’s claims, even though they
were backed by medical evidence and the testimony of expert witnesses.

24 The fact that key public figures involved both in preventing a full
investigation, and in the persecution of those attempting to secure one,
appear to be associated with each other in ways which might cast
reasonable doubt on their impartiality.

25 The fact that Crown Office officials, including Lords Advocate past
and present, refuse to give straight answers to straight questions, as
far as this case is concerned.

26 The fact of the former First Minister’s refusal to respond to a
legitimate Freedom of Information Request relating to Hollie’s case,
which - particularly in the light of continuing revelations south of
the border - suggests the possibility of political involvement at an
embarrassingly high level.